Did the Rwandan Evaluation Change anything?

A report by the Joint Evaluation Follow-up
Monitoring and Facilitation Network (JEFF)

The speed of onset and scale of the Great
Lakes emergency which unfolded in April 1994 leading to genocide and internal
displacement in Rwanda and massive refugee displacements to Zaire and Tanzania
presented one of the greatest challenges the humanitarian aid community
has ever had to face. Recognising the unprecedented nature of this
emergency and the humanitarian response, governments were eager to
learn as many lessons as possible from the events of 1994 and 1995. A Joint
Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda was therefore undertaken and
funded by numerous governments. The final report was launched in March
1996. This multi-donor funded evaluation of an emergency and subsequent
response was the largest of its type ever under-taken. The evaluation had
four components and was published in four separate studies;

- an account of the history of the Great
Lakes Region - study 1

- a study of the genocide in Rwanda - study
2

- an evaluation of the humanitarian response
to the emergency in Zaire, Tanzania and Rwanda - study 3

- an evaluation of the rehabilitation initiatives
in the region - study 4

The main findings of the four studies were
summarised in a synthesis report which contained no less than 64 recommendations
These recommendations varied enormously in range. For example, there
were specific recommendations aimed at ensuring; more effective prevention
and suppression of genocide, more effective conflict early warning systems,
and greater accountability of humanitarian agencies. A number of the recommendations
in the synthesis report were influenced by certain findings in study
3 regarding the provision of food and nutrition support to refugee and
IDPs . The food and nutrition section of study 3 singled out;
- inappropriate ration planning,
- inequity of food distribution systems
and
- inefficient selective feeding programmes
as the main problems in this sector of intervention.

These difficulties were then related to
a set of underlying factors including:
- failure of agency institutional memory,
- poor co-operation and co-ordination
between relief agencies,
- lack of consensus between agencies over
programme design, and
- shortage of suitably qualified technical
staff on the ground.

The recommendations in the synthesis report
which were most directly related to problems in the food and nutrition
sector were those on:
- strengthening co-ordination amongst
agencies,
- improving humanitarian agency performance,
- introducing accreditation systems for
humanitarian agencies and
- obtaining agreement on optimal food
distribution systems at agency level.

A Joint Evaluation Follow-up Monitoring
and Facilitation Network (JEFF) was formed in May 1996. This network was
set up to follow up progress arising out of the evaluation recommendations.
JEFF recently finalised a report which reviewed the follow-up and impact
of the Rwandan evaluation fifteen months after its publication.

This in itself is unusual as evaluations
so often are left to gather dust on shelves of commissioning agencies.
The JEFF report makes fascinating reading and while taking pains to acknowledge
that progress and implementation of recommendations made in the Rwandan
evaluation cannot be fully attributed to the evaluation, holds that there
are grounds for attributing many initiative at least partly to the joint
evaluation.

The JEFF report estimates that at least
two thirds of the recommendations have had at least some positive outcome
(see table below) but also expresses concern that 11% of recommendations
have not been formally discussed or raised by those agencies to whom the
recommendations are directed. Most of these unaddressed recommendations
are to do with 'Fostering Policy Coherence in the UN Security Council Secretariat
and General Assembly and Early Suppression of Genocide'.

Category

No. of Recommendations

Proportion of Total Recommendations

A

Not formally discussed/raised by recommendation
addresses

7

11%

B

Formally discussed by recommendation
addresses

4

6%

C

Formally discussed but no resolutions
or action

11

17%

D

Formally discussed and resolution
reached or action taken

24

37%

A/D

4

6%

C/D

14

22%

Copies of the multi-donor evaluation
of the Great Lakes Emergency and the JEFF report can be obtained from
Helen Awan, ODI, London, Fax 44 8698 5610, e-mail: h.awan@odi.org.uk.